Critical of leaders?

[Major Lord]

CAP Talk has a code of conduct of which the mods enforce very well.  "Criticizing" anyone is considered, IMO, a violation of the code however, there is nothing wrong with giving criticism on actions or policies of Civil Air Patrol or its leadership.  It's what makes this forum tick.  As far as our president is concerned; his actions and policies are open to critical commentary too.  There is no regulation prohibiting open and honest discusion or, our feelings about the happenings of our organization or country... As long as we keep it civil.

Unless you are in the Armed Forces.

Members of the Military just as in this forum are more than welcome to disagree with the Commander in Chief on policy as does any citizen on this forum.  The Marine that was recently discharged went further than just stating he disagreed with policies.  He made libelous comments and even stated he would not obey the orders of the Commander in Chief which is in direct contradiction to the Oath of Enlistment to which he was sworn to.  So the Question is did he lie about not being willing to obey lawfully issued orders or did he lie when he took his oath of enlistment?  Very different. 

This Marine Sgt. never received a Court Martial, he was just ejected with an "other than honorable" discharge. When you state that he committed libel, you are libeling him! (That's the thing about irony....)  As you know, truth is a valid defense to the charge of libel or slander, and in some 40 some odd suits brought thus far, only one  court has found a single party to have standing to question whether the President is a "Natural Born Citizen" as defined in Section one of Article 2 . At some point, this will be heard by the Supreme Court. Even absent a Commander in Chief, I think the idea that the entire chain of command below the Presidency is moot because the POTUS is illegally holding the office won't stand. The Officers appointed by Congress above the Sgt do not rely on the President to have lawful authority. In all fairness, they warned him, so he should have known the likely consequences of his actions.

Major Lord

[SARDOC]

As an aside, he said he would disobey UNLAWFUL orders, and never said, posted,commented, etc that he would disobey any lawful order.

It is the duty of all soldiers to not obey an unlawful order.  He was under the impression that the Commander in Chief was unqualified for the job making all orders issued therefor unlawful.  He's not the first to try that argument, he's also not the first to lose at that argument.

But yet a senior officer can make contemptuous remarks about former President Bush and get off scott free.

How do you make a Contemptuous remark about a former President?  If he was still the current President at the time then the same rule should apply.   If they failed to enforce it that would be on the administration.  I'm not condoning what either military member did or whether their differential treatment was fair.

It's about disagreeing with policy...not making libelous accusations which I feel is wrong for any member of the Military, the Auxiliary of the Civil Air Patrol or really any citizen.   I disagree with anyone making wrong allegations against anybody, when the discussion turns unprofessional you lose me. 

[abdsp51]

The incident occurred while Bush was in office and was basically swept under the rug.  Now I am not saying that the former marine was in the right or his actions are/were acceptable but this shows a gross inequality in the system.

[Major Lord]

Officers ARE held to a higher standard than enlisted folks when in come to dissing officials. You can find this in Article 88 of the UCMJ.

Major Lord

[SARDOC]

This Marine Sgt. never received a Court Martial, he was just ejected with an "other than honorable" discharge. When you state that he committed libel, you are libeling him!

While he was not subject to a Courts Martial, his case was reviewed during a hearing by a Marine Corps discharge review board and they determined he violated rules limiting political conduct by service members and they called his conduct as a "Serious Offense" and issued him an "Other than Honorable Discharge"  I'm sure the Marine could have exercised his appeal rights through the Courts Martial Process but declined to do so because that could have led to an equivalency to a Felony Conviction...which for someone getting discharged would just be insult to injury which I'm sure his legal representation advised him against. (Hypothesis on my part).

I personally feel the Discharge Category was more severe than it should have been.  It was the DRB that called his comments Libelous and being the officiating body in this matter, I'm inclined to agree with them.

[SARDOC]

The incident occurred while Bush was in office and was basically swept under the rug.  Now I am not saying that the former marine was in the right or his actions are/were acceptable but this shows a gross inequality in the system.

Like Major Lord says...Officers are held to a higher standard which if making these remarks while an active service member against a current Commander in Chief it should have been dealt with.  Officers and Enlisted members again are welcome to disagree with policy, but must obey their oath and the rules that limit their conduct.

[abdsp51]

The incident occurred while Bush was in office and was basically swept under the rug.  Now I am not saying that the former marine was in the right or his actions are/were acceptable but this shows a gross inequality in the system.

Like Major Lord says...Officers are held to a higher standard which if making these remarks while an active service member against a current Commander in Chief it should have been dealt with.  Officers and Enlisted members again are welcome to disagree with policy, but must obey their oath and the rules that limit their conduct.

Disagree yes but can not say so publicly and while people should be held to a higher standard usually it's not the case.  Case in point Gen McChrystal.

[JeffDG]

Even absent a Commander in Chief, I think the idea that the entire chain of command below the Presidency is moot because the POTUS is illegally holding the office won't stand. The Officers appointed by Congress above the Sgt do not rely on the President to have lawful authority. In all fairness, they warned him, so he should have known the likely consequences of his actions.

Major Lord

Speaking of officers in the chain below the CinC...at the time in question, SecDef was a holdover.  He was appointed by President Bush, not by President Obama.  That remained in place until Sec. Pineta replaced Sec. Gates at the Pentagon.

That said, Congress does not, ever, "appoint" officers.  The power of appointment rests solely with the President.  The Senate must advise and consent to certain positions (I think O-9+ IIRC), but they do not appoint the officer, the President does.

[SARDOC]

That said, Congress does not, ever, "appoint" officers.  The power of appointment rests solely with the President.  The Senate must advise and consent to certain positions (I think O-9+ IIRC), but they do not appoint the officer, the President does.

The House authorizes the Number of Positions by funding them.  Officers are selected by the President and the Commissions are confirmed by the Senate.  All Officers serve at the Pleasure of the President.  The appointment of Senior officers to Certain positions like the Chief of Staff, Chairman, and Major Commands are reviewed by the Senate Armed Services Committee than confirmed by the Senate. I believe it's not the paygrade but the nature of the position itself.

[bflynn]

Why, is someone crticizing the president?

CAP members are not prohibited from speaking their mind, but doing so while representing yourself as a member of CAP would be inappropriate.  You're still a private citizen with the right of free speech.  You didn't sign that away by joining CAP unless someone can show me a regulation to the contrary.

As far as criticizing leaders?  Well I've been told that every member is a leader, so I think there are at least three or four comments in this thread alone that would cross that line...

[abdsp51]

Why, is someone crticizing the president?

CAP members are not prohibited from speaking their mind, but doing so while representing yourself as a member of CAP would be inappropriate.  You're still a private citizen with the right of free speech.  You didn't sign that away by joining CAP unless someone can show me a regulation to the contrary.

As far as criticizing leaders?  Well I've been told that every member is a leader, so I think there are at least three or four comments in this thread alone that would cross that line...

Can you ever just contribute to a thread without trying to be devil's advocate, overly critical, or trying to find something more there?

[bflynn]

If you want to crtiicize me, please PM me - it's really bad form to drag the thread down.

Otherwise, I guess it was too subtle that the last line of my post was meant as a dry humor joke...

[abdsp51]

If you want to crtiicize me, please PM me - it's really bad form to drag the thread down.

Otherwise, I guess it was too subtle that the last line of my post was meant as a dry humor joke...

Wasn't criticizing at all.

[RogueLeader]

The op did indicate the higher echelons.

[Major Carrales]

As far as criticizing leaders?  Well I've been told that every member is a leader, so I think there are at least three or four comments in this thread alone that would cross that line...

The concept of "the loyal opposition" is a necessary part of the followership/leadership dynamic.  Pointing out "issues" with policy from above and how it effects the CAP populace is key to adjusting these policies.  Taking "pot shots" at CAP leadership with ad homoniem attacks or attacks that also destroy/tarnish   character is a violation of the CAP CORE VALUES of RESPECT, INTEGRITY and, to some degree EXCELLENCE.

DEATH TO DRAMA!

[bflynn]

I can't think that is a problem either.

I'm not sure this entire thread represents a problem, unless people want to use it as justification to silence the opposition.